Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Thornton Law Firm LLP'

You can use to get even better search results
February 06, 2012 |

Must Experts Duke It Out Before Class Certification?

In their Employment Law feature, Weil, Gotshal & Manges partners Jeffrey S. Klein and Nicholas J. Pappas discuss the differing views offered by the courts regarding the requirements for full 'Daubert' reviews at the class certification stage, which will likely herald continued disagreement by various circuits.
12 minute read
September 28, 2009 |

Fourth Circuit Sidesteps 'Stoneridge' In Case Against Investment Advisor

Robert J. Malionek, a partner at Latham & Watkins, writes that on May 7, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal of a �10(b) securities fraud action brought by shareholders of a concern against the concern's investment advisor, even though the advisor did not make the allegedly fraudulent statements. The Fourth Circuit held that, even though the alleged misstatements were made in prospectuses issued by subsidiary fund companies, all of which have separate management, and even though no statements in the prospectuses were attributed to the advisor, it is reasonable for the public to infer that the statements were sufficiently "made" by the advisor to give rise to �10(b) liability against it.
13 minute read
March 29, 2007 |

Corporate Securities

John C. Coffee, Jr., the Adolf A. Berle Professor of Law at Columbia University Law School and director of its Center on Corporate Governance, writes that until recently in the Second Circuit, plaintiffs in securities class actions were required only to make "some showing" of the certification requirements, at least when they were "enmeshed" with the merits and did not have to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard required by some other circuits.
12 minute read
December 28, 2006 |

Second Circuit Review

Martin Flumenbaum and Brad S. Karp, members of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, report on a landmark decision issued earlier this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that clarifies - and substantially toughens - the standards for adjudicating a motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
11 minute read
August 31, 2011 |

Commentary: In light of 'Wal-Mart,' D.C. Circuit should correct its approach to class actions

In recent years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has become a surprising outlier in allowing district courts to certify class actions without ensuring all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 are in fact met. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes has made the D.C. Circuit's position untenable, however, and it should be corrected sooner rather than later.
7 minute read
January 27, 2005 |

Nonprofits on Alert

Top in-house lawyers at universities, foundations, health care organizations and other charitable organizations are rewriting corporate charters, redrafting conflict-of-interest policies and in some instances performing costly examinations of their internal controls.
7 minute read
January 26, 2005 |

With Charity for All?

The nonprofit world greeted the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley two years ago largely with relief that the corporate governance law did not apply to them. But in the wake of scandals at The Nature Conservancy and elsewhere, more and more nonprofit GCs are rewriting corporate charters, redrafting conflict-of-interest policies, and performing costly examinations of their internal controls. Are they trying to do good or just hoping to fend off federal oversight?
12 minute read
United States of America v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 05 Civ. 5393 (RPP)
Publication Date: 2011-04-11
Practice Area: Legal Profession
Industry:
Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District
Judge: District Judge Robert P. Patterson
Attorneys:
For plaintiff: Counsel for Plaintiffs: Charles P. Greenman, Troutman Sanders LLP, New York, NY. Eric L. Unis, Troutman Sanders LLP (NYC), New York, NY. Philip Roy Michael, Michael Law Group, New York NY.
For defendant: Counsel for Defendants: Richard D. Raskin, Sidley Austin, LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL. Scott David Stein, Sidley Austin, LLP (Chicago), Chicago, IL. Kevin Michael McGinty, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, PC, Boston, MA.
Case number: 05 Civ. 5393 (RPP)

Cite as: United States of America v. Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, 05 Civ. 5393 (RPP), NYLJ 1202489464719, at *1 (SDNY, Decided March 24, 2011)District Judge

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • Good Legal Technology is Good Business: A Case for Bringing Employment Issues In-House

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now

  • Insights and Strategies for Effective Succession Planning in AM Law 100 Firms

    Brought to you by Gallagher

    Download Now

  • State AI Legislation Is on the Move in 2024

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now

  • 2024 ESI Risk Management & Litigation Readiness Report

    Brought to you by Pagefreezer

    Download Now

NEXT